After this thread, I think sticking with 3+1 is probably good, for numerous reasons, but I could see special situations where maybe we should strongly consider accepting a 4 lives on 6+1, like somebody recording a game on a public machine set to 6+1 where they don't have access to the dips.

Actually, that's the best argument in favor of 6+1 that I've read thus far.

I agree with Phil on a similar issue, who has said elsewhere that sniping the individual board records is cheesy, because targeting a particular board-type to max it out is a very different objective than getting an overall high score for a full run, and is almost at odds with it. But I see that whole track as strange for that very reason. It's basically "what's the maximum score you can get on a specific board type, while playing a style that has to balance maximizing score with managing risk?" They're "one hand tied behind your back" scores. And you can never be sure that somebody didn't just say "I don't care about this run, I'm just gonna go YOLO here," especially when on their last life. Somebody can also have other motives to go for one of these, and you can't "prove" that this is why they were going for it. I think it's a problematic track.

The 3+1 vs. 6+1 thing is a little different though, because the objective is the same regardless of the setting - get the highest overall score possible with your first 4 lives. Some people are against being lax on this rule not on the grounds that it would change anything about the game, but on the grounds that it would change the way players *mentally approach* the game. I definitely see where the argument is coming from, I just think it's really fascinating how it underlines how psychological people view this whole thing. The game really is only partially, and maybe not even mainly, about "skill."

I would make the point though that the "psychological advantage" theory has never actually been put to the test, since no serious players have tried it. The objection is purely hypothetical as it stands.

After this thread, I think sticking with 3+1 is probably good, for numerous reasons, but I could see special situations where maybe we should strongly consider accepting a 4 lives on 6+1, like somebody recording a game on a public machine set to 6+1 where they don't have access to the dips.

Finally, in light of this discussion, I think we should seriously reconsider whether we can accept scores for 1-1 and Start that are part of a full game attempt. Maybe we should go back to the TG standard of having to kill it off? Seems like a double-standard here if we don't. Dan mentioned that you can only get a 1-1 or Start score if you don't die, but most full games that have a death before 5-1 get restarted, and nobody plays out a full game with a death on 1-1.

Interesting stuff!

I don't view the "Individual Level and Stage Records" as the same kind of leaderboard as the Main HSL. It was always more about fun and curiosity, rather than some kind of official ranking of the best players. I still find it useful as a means of tracking the kinds of scores that are possible within the game.

1-1 and Start scores are similar. I'm also not sure how exactly those two types of scores figure into this discussion. The number of lives is irrelevant for a 1-1 score. In fact, the current rules allow a 1-1 score to come from ANY life...not just the first. I would actually be in favor of submitting a 1-1 score on ANY settings. Personally, I would NEVER kill off a huge 1-1 score and I would never expect any player to do so. For various reason, I hardly think TG standards are something we should be worried about. And a "Start" score must be deathless to be considered for the Start HSL. So, again, number of lives is irrelevant. These are built-in assumptions about those scores and those assumptions don't have to match what we expect to see in a full 3+1 game...a big 1-1 is either an individual attempt or it's part of a full game. A Start score is simply a deathless score after 4-5.

Taking all that into account, the "Individual Level and Stage Records" should still come from a 3+1 game, because the original intent was to track legitimate scores from full, standard games. I agree that the track has become problematic, but I don't think those problems should have any bearing and what we expect from a full, standard game.

Also, here's a scenario I'm envisioning:

A player on 6+1 settings has a great game and gets to 21-5 on their 4th life, leaving 3 in reserve. They execute the standard high-score tactic of sacrificing their extra men (#4, #5, and #6) and leaving the last (#7) to try and reach the killscreen. How do we score a game like this? No player on 3+1 settings would EVER sacrifice their 4th man on 21-5...but do we still take the score after that 4th-life sac? Do we substitute the 7th life for the 4th? That's ridiculous. Equally ridiculous would be trying to suss out "player intent" in this kind of scenario. Did they start a 6+1 game, intending only to submit a 3+1 score regardless of the final outcome, but then switch their intent to 6+1 after seeing they had a shot a huge score? Did they declare all of this clearly, in a manner that would be acceptable to everyone? ....so on and so on.

To me, that's a much bigger concern than Riley's "slam-dunk" argument that people might miscount lives...

Logged

"Do not criticize, question, suggest or opine anything about an upcoming CAG event, no matter how constructive or positive your intent may be. You will find nothing but pain and frustration, trust me. Just go, or don't go, and either way!" -ChrisP, 3/29/15

I don't view the "Individual Level and Stage Records" as the same kind of leaderboard as the Main HSL. It was always more about fun and curiosity, rather than some kind of official ranking of the best players. I still find it useful as a means of tracking the kinds of scores that are possible within the game.

A player on 6+1 settings has a great game and gets to 21-5 on their 4th life, leaving 3 in reserve. They execute the standard high-score tactic of sacrificing their extra men (#4, #5, and #6) and leaving the last (#7) to try and reach the killscreen... How do we score a game like this?

If the player chose to do that, then the 4-man segment would end on 21-5, when the 4th man died, and you'd score it the same way you would any other 3+1 game. Don't make it more complicated than it is, sir!

The tactical quandary as to what to do (sac #4, #5, and #6 on 21-5 to beef up the 7-man score, or take #4 all the way to the KS to beef up the 4-man score) would be up to the player.

The 6+1 setting essentially allows a player to compete simultaneously on 2 tracks.... Not good. The player should be required to declare intent up front.

But that's not how it works here, Scott! At DKF, a player can submit the same game to the 1-1 track, the Start track, the standard (3+1) track, and even the No-Hammer track, and have that one single game be ranked on all 4 lists.

In other words, DKF already allows players to compete simultaneously on multiple tracks, and without declaring intent in any way. They can submit their game to whatever track they want, depending on how their game went. Ie, "Initially I was only trying to put something big up for the Start track, and I succeeded, but I kept going and I PB'ed, so I'll submit it to the 3+1 track too". Totally legal here. But if intent must be declared, and multiple-track-competition-by-default are, as you say, "not good", then it shouldn't be legal.

You would "declare intent" on a 1-1 score, or a Start score, by immediately killing your guy after you get your score.

We don't have a 6+1 track at DKF (I definitely want it now, by the way ), but if we did, there seem to be two main arguments against submitting the first-four-lives segment to the standard 3+1 track.

One argument is, "no, since getting a 4-man score was not the declared intent, and constitutes simultaneous competition on two tracks."

The other argument is, "no, because you'd play the first four men with the wrong mentality and wouldn't be scared enough."

The first argument is, as I've shown, contradicted by current DKF practices.

The second is understandable, but nonetheless pretty bizarre. If I'm feeling totally unattached one day and play No-Hammer (for example) with absolute YOLO, jump over every single fire-critter I see, get ridiculous luck, and back into the world record, should the score be DQ'ed because my mentality about the run caused an insufficient level of emotional investment?? That's basically what the "psychology" argument against "first 4 lives on 6+1" amounts to. I get it, but you have to admit that using psychology as the basis for enforcing a dipswitch setting has never been done before, and is very strange...

Scott, I swear I'm not picking on you. But let me do this as clearly as I can, slightly rewriting a post of yours from earlier in the thread.

A long distance runner enters the Boston Marathon.A Donkey Kong player begins a killscreen run.

He pushes himself at the start, establishing a very fast pace.He pushes himself at the start, establishing a big score at the end of Level 4-5.

Before reaching the halfway point, he's completely out of gas and drops out of the race.Before reaching Level 12, he's completely out of lives and the game ends.

Upon further review, he realizes that his time for the first 5000 meters is a new personal best.Upon further review, he realizes that his score for the first 4 levels is a new personal best.

He submits his performance to the appropriate authorities, claiming a #7 worldwide ranking for his 5K time.He submits his performance to the DKF Start high score list, claiming a #3 worldwide ranking for his 145,000 score.

Sorry pal, but there's zero chance of that claim being approved. The time is legit, but it occurred during a completely different event."Congratulations (name), your Start score has been verified and added to the Start high score list."

I'm not trying to be a jackass, I just don't feel like breaking it all out.

I think the break in the 1-1/Start/Full Game philosophy is this: Scott and I are saying (correct me if I'm misrepresenting you sir) that 1-1s and Starts are already considered to be free-for-alls. It doesn't matter what the intent or settings are for those tracks. It's implied that those scores may have been set under a variety of circumstances...individual attempts, full games, happy accidents, whatever. So, my personal confusion here is why we should judge a full game performance in the same manner. I don't see this as an issue of consistency in the application of rules because each DKF "track" has its own set of standards, explicit and implicit, and they don't necessarily have to be related. Maybe I just missed the boat.

I used a sports analogy when I had this debate with Corey and a similar analogy has come back, and the more I think about, the more I think it's all wrong. We're talking distances in relation to DK (200m vs 100m, marathon vs 5k, etc)...but do those analogies really work? Running the 200m doesn't make the first 100m easier....running a marathon doesn't make the first 5k easier. What we're really talking about is if the standards of performance have an effect on said performance. So maybe a better analogy would be whether you would accept a 200m dash running downhill vs a 200m dash running on a flat track. But if the distance analogy is still what you prefer, go back to what I said to Corey: would you accept a 100m WR during a 200m race if the runner just stopped running in the middle of the race? Maybe the IAAF would, but that's some level shit right there.

Going back to my hypothetical scenario, I made it complicated because that's exactly what will happen if that scenario ever comes about. Chris, you've been around long enough and know better than anyone that if someone submitted a game like that, no matter the rules, everybody would hop on their drama llamas and take a ride. "No normal 3+1 game would end like that!" "That's something would do!" "Maybe having more lives affects the RNG!"

It's complicated because people will make it complicated.

Logged

"Do not criticize, question, suggest or opine anything about an upcoming CAG event, no matter how constructive or positive your intent may be. You will find nothing but pain and frustration, trust me. Just go, or don't go, and either way!" -ChrisP, 3/29/15

On that point I DEFINITELY 100% agree with you, which is why, when it comes down to it, I am actually pretty well convinced at this point that we SHOULD keep the 4-man track at "3+1/7K extra" settings. It makes things simpler, honors tradition, and eliminates objections that might come up, whether or not the objections are valid. This makes it somewhat less-inclusive for people who might be on weird settings for their own reasons, but whatever.

I think "explicit" is good. If things are more explicit, we might avoid threads like this!

You're saying that there's a stricter standard for the regular high score track (and presumably the no-hammer track) than the other tracks. Scores on the regular track need to be achieved on specific settings. 1-1 and Start scores do not need to be achieved on specific settings. I have no problem with that. But it wasn't argued quite that way until you did just now!

Scott made the argument that he doesn't think a player should be able to compete on two tracks simultaneously, in pretty much those exact words, which DKF explicitly allows, so there was a contradiction between his stated philosophy and the submission rules here. If you're gunning for a standard-track score, while also trying for big 1-1 and Start scores that you also plan to submit for, then that is, literally speaking, simultaneous competition on multiple tracks.

I just felt the need to point that out, because if and when a 6+1 track is established here, a rationale should be explicit for why you can't extract and submit a normal-track 4-man score from the 6+1 settings, even though you ARE allowed to extract a 1-1 or Start track score from any settings. An official rationale would be good, even if it ends up being some sort of Lexmarkian voodoo about player-moods.

I've never submitted to either the 1-1 or Start tracks, but if I do, now I'm going to go out of my way to do them on 5+1 with the extra at 10K, and, when finished, use the rest of the men for wall-jumps.

Believe it or not, like the killscreen/screenkill discussion (which was also my fault ), I think this thread has been interesting and at least somewhat productive...

I don't think there's any one reason to not include 6+1 scores in the main list. Rather the cumulative possibility of doubt, stemming from ALL arguments. This doubt could then impact negatively upon the HSL, something which we should try to avoid when possible.Best to keep it simple.

I played a game of 7-man on Secret Private DK Island last night, and it was everything I'd hoped it would be!

I died on 5-1 after doing something stupid, but then I just smiled and kept going. I did NOT feel like breaking every window in my house and tearing the wiring harness out of the cab to slowly choke myself to death with it. I proceeded, died stupidly a second time, (and a third time), and eventually cruised to just under 800K at a low 1M pace.